User talk:Uthay6505

Welcome!

Hello, Uthay6505, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Sri Lanka Reconciliation Forum Sydney, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Mtking (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sri Lanka Reconciliation Forum Sydney[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sri Lanka Reconciliation Forum Sydney requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mtking (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at Sri Lanka Reconciliation Forum Sydney[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Sri Lanka Reconciliation Forum Sydney, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion notice, which will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in user space drafts[edit]

Please do not add Categories to user space drafts. Mtking (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uthay6505 You are referring to the Wikipedia:No original research. Specially to the section on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The material you have removed fall under primary sources. Usage of primary sources is not per se restricted. "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

The book blurb, and the excerpts from the Throsby interview, fall under “primary sources that have been reliably published” and may be used in Wikipedia. It is when it comes to interpretation of primary source material that you need a ‘reliable secondary source for that interpretation’. In other words, “All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.”

Please note that I am not interpreting/analyzing/synthesizing claims about the primary-source material. I am merely placing them in the article to make a straight forward, descriptive statement as described in, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." When I say “There is thus an attempted projection of Sri Lankan Forces into her fighting experiences..” I am using the primary source material(blurb and the interview) to make a ‘straightforward, descriptive statement that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.’

However ‘the straightforward descriptive statement’ is a moot point anyway because all of my primary source material is referenced in my secondary sources and interpreted in a similar way. So even if my claim about a "straightforward descriptive statement" is not acceptable, I am still following "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources."

So I am re-inserting the materials you removed. Authority for insertion comes from two Wikipedia policies. 1)Usage of primary source material which is referenced in my secondary sources and interpreted in similar fashion 2)Usage of primary source material to make a ‘straightforward, descriptive statement’ But I will only do that tomorrow, not just yet to allow you time to think.Gettingthere (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Imagined context", "apparent ignorance of her adversaries in Combat", "attempted projection of Sri Lankan Forces in to her fighting experiences" are all straightforward, descriptive statements of the following quotes.

“Two days before Christmas in 1987, at the age of 17, Niromi de Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting government forces in the bloody civil war that was to engulf Sri Lanka for decades…”

“…when I joined, the Indian forces had arrived and the tigers had chosen to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces”

“I watched it. I forced myself to watch it… It distressed the whole time….I couldn’t sleep that night… but at the same time it wasn’t new. This was something that I knew had happened. I mean I had witnessed much of it and I knew when… the Tamil tigers were caught by the soldiers those things would happen …they would be shot in the head, raped, tortured all of those things. It was nothing new.”

Anyway, as I said that is a moot point. I was merely trying to explain that a wikipedia editor who edited the page only based on the Throsby interview and the blurb would still have a good case. Though an interesting hypothetical debate, there is absolutely no need for us to get bogged down in this. This is not that hypothetical scenario and I am not that hypothetical editor. Original Research does not apply here at all. I am not making an original arguement because as I said before (and you seem to have missed it so I will bold it)

All of these quotes are referenced in my secondary source, ref name=GV>Michael Roberts, Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s “Tamil Tigress”, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko? which uses them to point out the foundational error in Tamil Tigress.

In your last edit, at 05:18 on 8 Sep. 2011 (removed by Rocelese), I have noticed language usage, which can be construed as attempts to obscure known facts. For example you say;

“From late July 1987 to early 1990, following the signing of the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord and the consequent arrival of the IPKF Sri Lankan forces largely ceased combat operations against the LTTE.” and

“Sri Lankan forces largely stayed clear of direct combat with the LTTE during this period apart from a few limited operations in the sea by the Navy.”

When you say ‘largely’, you are creating ambiguity, uncertainty and doubt, which is totally unwarranted and contra to the aims of an encyclopedia. There is no ‘largely’ about it. Sri Lankan Forces ceased combat operations against the LTTE. You also say;

“In the period when the LTTE was at war with the IPKF (early October 1987 to end of 1989), there is no evidence of the Sri Lankan forces participating in any joint military operations along with the IPKF. Neither is there any evidence of a joint Sri Lankan command structure being in place.”

I am stunned here. The phrase ‘there is no evidence’ does not belong here. This event happened in 1987 and is part of the living memory of the majority of the adult population in the world today. It was extensively reported on, commented upon and a large body of secondary and tertiary sources exists on it. As an example of the richness of data surrounding this period, let me direct your attention to Shyam Tekwani, "Shyam Tekwani's Camerawork within the LTTE domain in the late 1980s" an Indian photo-journalist, who was embedded with the Tigers during their struggle against the IPKF and earlier when they fought the Sri Lankan forces. He entered Sri Lanka illegally and lived with the tigers as one of them, complete with the cyanide capsule. "Sleeping with the enemy Tekwani lived with the Tigers".

So there is absolutely no need to write about the IPKF period in SL as if you are writing about an incident, which happened in Mars in 2nd century BC. When one is writing about remote temporal contexts, which are data poor, of course one uses words like, ‘largely’ and ‘there is no evidence of’ to acknowledge the degree of uncertainty. Since this forum requires me to assume good faith, I will concede that you are not doing this to deliberately obscure the issue, but because, the IPKF period is personally obscure to you. That is not a good reason however to render it obscure to Wikipedia readers as well.

However you will see that I have made changes to the text to remove the unwarrented assumption of an original research edit. Anyone else would think you are trying to use Wikipedia policy as red tape to supress relevant infor., but I am bound to assum good faith and will concede you are trying to be cautious. I am sure I don't have to remind you of WP:COMMON SENSE, which declares, "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule...The principle of the rules is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment. "Gettingthere (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]